Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You and I both know what the common usage of the word 'homophobia' refers to. Don't try to be so obtuse in future.

Grignard wrote:
I'm not sure comparing Somalia to the United states is worthwhile. The United States is a developed nation with stable government and reasonably effective law enforcement, while Somalia, in the past, has not been. During periods of unrest in Somalia it might be difficult to even define what is crime and what is armed conflict.

That's sort of my point. Firearm possession does not appear to be a correlate of total crime.

Grignard wrote:
The theory an armed citizen can prevent violence by responding immediately to a situation in areas or times when police may not be immediately available. As is, while I completely support CC in general, I'm leery about extending that to places where alcohol is served or college campuses, for different reasons.

The ultimate issue is related to security forces. How do you determine who is a benign gun handler, and who is a malicious one?

You don't. You simply assume all gun handlers are malicious, and ban them from the premises.

Well if it understood that nobody else is expected to be carrying, why would anyone go to the premise armed if not for a malicious intent? If the only reason for carrying a defensive weapon is for defense, why take one somewhere you know nobody else has one?

Frazzled wrote:
Then you have to add the number of crimes averted by demonstrating with a firearm (the FBI put that at 2.5MM in one year).

Do you have a source for that?

Frazzled wrote:
Its all a joyous statistical exercise.

And it all depends on the definitions proffered via argument. Sure, you can change the terms of the debate, but you must indicate when you are doing so.

Guitardian wrote:Well if it understood that nobody else is expected to be carrying, why would anyone go to the premise armed if not for a malicious intent? If the only reason for carrying a defensive weapon is for defense, why take one somewhere you know nobody else has one?

Becuase you don'tknow. "Gun free" zones are the ones most likely to be hit by a mass murdering nutjob.

Guitardian wrote:Well if it understood that nobody else is expected to be carrying, why would anyone go to the premise armed if not for a malicious intent? If the only reason for carrying a defensive weapon is for defense, why take one somewhere you know nobody else has one?

Because that's not true. People are carrying because other people are carrying. Why shouldn't a man take a gun as defense against a knife-attack, if he can?

sA

Frazzled wrote:
Becuase you don'tknow. "Gun free" zones are the ones most likely to be hit by a mass murdering nutjob.

No, historically that's false. There have been more mass murders in areas which have no particular relationship to guns, than those that have an explicitly intolerant relationship to them. Note how the majority of mass shootings occurred before stringent gun regulation became a reality.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Becuase you don'tknow. "Gun free" zones are the ones most likely to be hit by a mass murdering nutjob.

No, historically that's false. There have been more mass murders in areas which have no particular relationship to guns, than those that have an explicitly intolerant relationship to them. Note how the majority of mass shootings occurred before stringent gun regulation became a reality.

Sauce on that please?

Just look at criminal history in any major US metropolitan area. Chicago is a good test case, actually.

Mass shootings were relatively common in the 70's and 80's, even in areas with minimal firearm regulation.

Gun law in US municipalities does not, generally, correlate with gun crime. The truth is that its unlikely that a civilian will intercede in a physical altercation in which he is not directly threatened. After all, flight is almost always far safer than fight.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Becuase you don'tknow. "Gun free" zones are the ones most likely to be hit by a mass murdering nutjob.

No, historically that's false. There have been more mass murders in areas which have no particular relationship to guns, than those that have an explicitly intolerant relationship to them. Note how the majority of mass shootings occurred before stringent gun regulation became a reality.

Sauce on that please?

What kind of sauce?

My biggest problem with "gun free" zones, other than the obvious Constitutional problems, is that they should probably be called "I don't get it, and I'm a naive little infant" zones.

It's called "concealed carry" for a reason. If you can't enforce something, not even a little, then saying you're enforcing it makes you delusional. Unless you've got a metal detector at every single egress point, it's not a gun free zone. It's just your opinion that there shouldn't be guns there, and nobody cares.

Plus, If I'm carrying a weapon concealed, and I find myself in a situation where I need it, I am WAY WAY beyond caring about the stupid little signs you put up.

Why do it? It's like having a "world peace zone." Nice dream. Go tell everyone at the drum circle what a genius you are.

I think you'd be surprised at how many people will deliberately abandon a weapon when entering nominally benign circumstances. Of the people I knew with concealed carry permits, almost all of them would obey posted signs.

The purpose of said signs is an extension of this fact. If law-abiding people obey signs, then people not obeying said signs are not law abiding. Granted, this is an extension of the idea that laws create criminals, but I think there is at least some element of psychological intent to be considered. Someone who knowingly disobeys a sign on a certain property is someone who has at least some level of disregard for that property, and its inhabitants.

Phryxis wrote:My biggest problem with "gun free" zones, other than the obvious Constitutional problems, is that they should probably be called "I don't get it, and I'm a naive little infant" zones.

It's called "concealed carry" for a reason. If you can't enforce something, not even a little, then saying you're enforcing it makes you delusional. Unless you've got a metal detector at every single egress point, it's not a gun free zone. It's just your opinion that there shouldn't be guns there, and nobody cares.

Plus, If I'm carrying a weapon concealed, and I find myself in a situation where I need it, I am WAY WAY beyond caring about the stupid little signs you put up.

Why do it? It's like having a "world peace zone." Nice dream. Go tell everyone at the drum circle what a genius you are.

requoted for truthiness.

I think you'd be surprised at how many people will deliberately abandon a weapon when entering nominally benign circumstances. Of the people I knew with concealed carry permits, almost all of them would obey posted signs.

I do in some cases, but not in others.

For example, I sometimes carry into a movie theater. Screw you, movie theater.

I don't think it's fair (and in most cases it's also illegal) to carry into an alcohol serving establishment. Even if you don't plan to drink, if you go to a place with drunk people, you have to understand that they might do drunk things at you. It's just not fair to them to start shooting them for being drunk. If you don't accept the dangers inherant to drunk people, don't go near them.

dogma wrote:I think you'd be surprised at how many people will deliberately abandon a weapon when entering nominally benign circumstances. Of the people I knew with concealed carry permits, almost all of them would obey posted signs.

The purpose of said signs is an extension of this fact. If law-abiding people obey signs, then people not obeying said signs are not law abiding. Granted, this is an extension of the idea that laws create criminals, but I think there is at least some element of psychological intent to be considered. Someone who knowingly disobeys a sign on a certain property is someone who has at least some level of disregard for that property, and its inhabitants.

Here's a thing about signs though, people can go around them and the sign itself doesn't stop anyone if they do happen to carry. I will give an example from a book I read, written by a member of my church who was a member of a liasion group during the cold war in eastern germany.

There was a small russian port that the US government wanted information about so he was supposed to find a way to infiltrate it. Well, it just so happened that there was a ferry that civilians could take to get into the port. Needless to say, he used the ferry to get in and snapped some photos and hid his camera. As he was leaving he was stopped by a russian guard who pointed to a sign near the main entrance saying that american liasions were not allowed entrance. Here's the catch, the sign only showed on the land based entrance and not on the water based entrance. After pointing this out and saying that he simply did not know, he got off scott free.

Sure, some people don't obey signs. The point isn't that they're perfect preventive measures, but that they do prevent some undesirable behavior for the fact that some people do obey them at least some of the time.

And really, how expensive or intrusive is a sign on the door that reads 'guns prohibited on these premises'?

I never carry into places posted. Getting caught is a felony. Felons lose their gun rights.

Now I feel places like the mall should allow guns. Bars and banks I can see a reason for prohibition of guns.

But I have mine on me whenever and wherever I'm allowed.

One guy in my city even goes so far as to wear his holstered gun CLEARLY in plain sight. Concealed doesn't actually mean hidden. It just has to be holstered and unbrandished. A holstered gun IS technically hidden inside the holster.

And really, how expensive or intrusive is a sign on the door that reads 'guns prohibited on these premises'?

Sure, I guess if you view it as being "worth a try" there's some sense to it.

I've just always viewed it as being unConstitutional douchebaggery that doesn't even work. It's like saying "I don't respect your rights, and that's all I have to say about that."

I never carry into places posted. Getting caught is a felony.

I hear you, but at the same time, getting caught without a gun when you needed it is probably worse.

Concealed doesn't actually mean hidden.

Actually, it does. Laws vary by state, so perhaps there are some localities where this is true, but I'm not aware of any of them.

I live in Colorado. Open carry is legal without any type of permit. So that means you can walk around with a pistol in a holster, and you're ok. Although I wouldn't count on cops knowing that. Concealed carry is also legal, but a permit is required.

To further complicate matters, if you have a concealed carry permit, you can no longer open carry. I'm not certain on this, but I believe that's accurate.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What if there are people who approve of free speech and disapprove of carrying of guns.

The fact that they are both allowed or guaranteed under the constitution does not compel one's personal convictions.

I understand that. But the argument that has been used works on the idea that shopping malls are effectively public places and can't use private property rights as an excuse to trump individual rights because they are public. Shouldn't that work the same for rights guaranteed under another amendment?

I'm not necessarily saying how I feel, or that someone can't feel that way, but it seems like you'd have to make both arguments to make one.

Once you get into the nitty gritty detail it becomes more difficult.

For example, I would use the argument that if a shopping mall is allowed to ban free speech inside, it prevents consumers from making a legitimate protest outside a shop. It would be meaningless for this protest to be made at home -- the point of the protest is that it must be done in front of the company it concerns.

OTOH I would argue there is no reason for the general public to carry weapons in the mall since it already has security. The carrying of weapons in such circumstances is not for a practical purpose and only serves to validate a specific opinion about the right to bear arms. Against that, the more weapons in a place the more chance there is of an accident. Please note I am making this argument as a demonstration of the kind of argument I think could be made, which would be legitimate and sensible if I were a US civil libertarian.

Also note that the right of free speech is limited by things such as slander and calling out fire in a crowded theatre, so there are precedents for limitations of amendment rights.

Personally I think malls, unfortunately, should be able to limit what people wear and say in their property. I'm not necessarily a fan of some of these policies, but it is their property.

What I found interesting is that the people who support the right to protest in front of shops or wear contraversial shirt slogans are making their case that a mall is effectively no longer true private property and by their nature are public spaces, therefore the constitution protects their right to speak as they like. Someone could argue that if they have a permit that allows them to carry on public land ( On the road, walking down the sidewalk, in parks*) then if a mall is a public space for free speech then it is a public space as far as carrying their weapon.

Personally I would have no problem with someone around me who has a C&C permit and a weapon in the mall. I'd probably never become aware of it. I also think that a mall *is* private property and can ask you not to carry the weapon on their property. I just think that the free speech thing in malls is kind of the same argument, and I think the mall can decide what goes on in both cases.

* Parks are currently a bone of contention in Knox country TN. Currently firearms are forbidden, along with fireworks, alcohol, and hitting golf balls if the park is not also a golf course. There is debate about allowing permit holders to carry in parks.

Also, private property has limits too. Obviously the mall can't break your fingers for shoplifting just because its private property. But where do property rights end and individual rights begin? Its very sticky and I'm not sure how I feel about all of these issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

The ultimate issue is related to security forces. How do you determine who is a benign gun handler, and who is a malicious one?

You don't. You simply assume all gun handlers are malicious, and ban them from the premises.

Can you not request that they produce a permit if someone reports them with a gun? Sure, I guess there is a fear element in approaching someone with a firearm if you're not armed, but I seriously doubt someone will start shooting just because they're asked to leave.

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE WILL RUIN THIS COUNTRY!

Seriously do you think that the average TAX payer wants to dish out more money for the government?

If you do go to England. Their they have taxes so ridiculusly high its not even funny.

Other than that I love Gunz my uncle has an MG42, MP44, 5/6 Kar 98s, and some stuff that I can't remember. I myself have a kar 98. I like shooting them and taking em apart to understand them.

I am a non-average taxpayer (just can't vote) and I don't object to taxes if they are used towards everyone's betterment, including my own. Reality is far different than fantasy though.

So long as they don't make me try to claim my guns on my W2 I won't have a problem.

Phryxis wrote:
Sure, I guess if you view it as being "worth a try" there's some sense to it.

I've just always viewed it as being unConstitutional douchebaggery that doesn't even work. It's like saying "I don't respect your rights, and that's all I have to say about that."

If the sign is on private property, then it isn't unconstitutional. The Constitution does not generally grant rights in the course of dealing with non-governmental entities. The obvious exception being the abolition of slavery.

Of course, there is the argument from civil rights to consider, but that doesn't seem to be a popular line of reasoning amongst gun advocates.

I suppose I could make a claim that my 'civil rights' could include not being at risk from being randomly injured or killed by someone else's civil rights to own a gun?

Our rights extend as far as our power to protect them. Our power to protect them, we think, involves owning our own protection, and also this is allowing those that chose to abuse that right the ability to abuse my own, by picking and choosing where they shoot whether I'm there, gun cocked, etc, or not. They shoot first, so I guess I don't really have rights because I'm not walking around the mall like some kind of SWAT cop just waiting for it to randomly happen with my gun loaded and ready.

Guitardian wrote:I suppose I could make a claim that my 'civil rights' could include not being at risk from being randomly injured or killed by someone else's civil rights to own a gun?

You're confusing Civil Rights with Human Rights.

sA

Well, one other issue is that if carrying a firearm is considered a civil right, and therefore subject to civil rights protections, one must subsequently ask what other 'creeds' are subject to such protection.

We just do, I know it's weid.

That's what I figured right at the start, and I wanted someone else to say it.

Kilkrazy wrote:That's what I figured right at the start, and I wanted someone else to say it.

Good .

Don't try to understand Americans and guns. Just know we are better than you all.

I'll never understand how the British have such fethed up teeth nor do I try so please don't try to understand our gun love.